Dawkins is no atheist - he's agnostic

[Skimix]

I don't think Dawkins has the first idea what he is. He lacks the philosophical literacy to express himself coherently.

In what way? He seems perfectly coherent to me.

 

[danny la rouge]

Justnoticed something and if this is a new feature of the baord that you can "compare versions" of edited posts, there is no much use for me to edit them.

Only your own.

 

[Hi-ASL]

How does being an atheist - just 'not believing in God/Gods' - mean that you don't believe in God 'regardless of the possibility of any evidence emerging to the contrary'? It just means you don't believe in God/Gods.

I think he means that to not believe - or to be void of belief - without regard to the evidence amounts to a faith position. I think.

 

[Hi-ASL]

I'm confused as to why the word athesit even exists today, since anyone who even admits to a .000000001% that god *might* exist are labelled agnostic...I mean WTF?

Some are 7s.

 

[danny la rouge]

Some are 7s.

If man is 5
If man is 5
If man is 5
And the Devil is 6

 

[scifisam]

I think he means that to not believe - or to be void of belief - without regard to the evidence amounts to a faith position. I think.

But that makes no sense. I have heard it before, but it's never made any sense. Believing is an action. To say that not believing is a belief in itself would be like saying that sitting down (and not running) is a form of running.

In any case, most people do consider the evidence, or lack of it.

 

[Jonti]

The Conundrum of the Workshops

.

 

[Hi-ASL]

And now explain why you're posting it. Sounds like a sentimental argument for intelligent design to me.

 

[Jonti]

heh! wrong thread, actually

 

[Hi-ASL]

But that makes no sense. I have heard it before, but it's never made any sense. Believing is an action. To say that not believing is a belief in itself would be like saying that sitting down (and not running) is a form of running.

In any case, most people do consider the evidence, or lack of it.

I think the point is that the non-belief must be put on a rational footing otherwise you're on shaky ground. On what basis do we reconsider the position?

 

[Hi-ASL]

heh! wrong thread, actually

I thought that - but it sort of fits.

The 'is it art' thread is thataway. <----------

(For those who missed it, it was this..)

 

[Jonti]

There's an infinite number of things that can be believed without evidence, if one feels that way. I don't have to defend my disbeliefs -- life's too short. My beliefs may need defending.

To not believe unless one has some cause is mere ordinary sanity.

 

[isitme]

I always thought of Dawkins 'God Delusion' stuff as kind of propaganda. Like someone said on page1 it seems to be aimed at N.Americans where the church has much more power than in Europe, so he is being deliberately polemic

 

[scifisam]

I think the point is that the non-belief must be put on a rational footing otherwise you're on shaky ground. On what basis do we reconsider the position?

Well, yes and no. Why should anyone justify not believing in something? They don't not believe because they don't want to believe, or because of specific experiences, they just don't believe. I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster either, but I'm not going to write a thesis explaining why.

Of course, if people could be turned into 'believers' if someone proved the existence of God, then they still wouldn't be believers at all. If it had been proven and they knew God existed, it'd be like believing in a kitchen table, which is only meaningful in a solipsistic sense.

 

[Hi-ASL]

There's an infinite number of things that can be believed without evidence, if one feels that way. I don't have to defend my disbeliefs -- life's too short. My beliefs may need defending.

To not believe unless one has some cause is mere ordinary sanity.

For some things there simply is no evidence. The question lies in what we do if compelling evidence emerges that doesn't accord with our view on the matter (and, I suppose, what 'compelling' means in that context).

 

[Hi-ASL]

Well, yes and no. Why should anyone justify not believing in something? They don't not believe because they don't want to believe, or because of specific experiences, they just don't believe. I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster either, but I'm not going to write a thesis explaining why.

Of course, if people could be turned into 'believers' if someone proved the existence of God, then they still wouldn't be believers at all. If it had been proven and they knew God existed, it'd be like believing in a kitchen table, which is only meaningful in a solipsistic sense.

So in what way is it meaningful to believe or not believe in something without regard to the evidence, or the lack of it? Maybe you should give me an example so that I can understand it better.

 

[Jonti]

That's the standard example. For a Pastafarian, the Flying Spaghetti Monster plays the same role as Jahweh, God, or Allah plays for a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

You can't prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, can you?

 

[Aldebaran]

I believe it exists and ask anyone who ever tried to get me eat spaghetti when I was a kid. They know it exists, they saw it coming and hitting them and so do the floors and walls that happened to be so unlucky to carry and surround me.

What more proof do you want? It is just like the vengeful description of God in the OT. (Which, accidentaly, I do not underscribe.)

salaam.

 

[Mojofilter]

To quote Dawkins as closely as I can from memory "I'm agnostic about God in the same way that I'm agnostic about there being fairies at the bottom of the garden"
I.e. He can't prove that God doesn't exist so he can't say with 100% certainty that He/She doesn't, but it's on par with a million other theories with no evidence to support them, like fairies, but you wouldn't for one second say that he's agnostic about fairies.
Although he's technically agnostic, he is to all intents and purposes an atheist (and I would imagine that the same is true for 99.99999% of everyone else that considers themselves an atheist).

 

[Azrael]

Yep. In The God Delusion Prof. Dawkins had a scale of belief from one to seven, and placed himself as six leaning to seven: agnostic in the sense he's agnostic about unicorns and fairies.

But the effectiveness of Prof. Dawkins' crusade is underminded by his failure empathise with "faith-heads". I don't blame him; until recently I was similarly bemused.

I think I'm beginning to understand now: religion is a means to comprehend the unknowable. Nuanced believers don't take even the fundamentals of the Nicene Creed literally. It's an abstract position with much potential for woolly-headedness, and I don't fully understand it, but I'm coming to believe that it has value.

Prof. Dawkins approaches the thing as a scientific question, which is a valid approach, but addresses only the ice above the waterline.